Citation Nr: 0505006
Decision Date: 02/23/05 Archive Date: 03/04/05
DOCKET NO. 03-20 294 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia,
South Carolina
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for scar, left eye.
2. Entitlement to service connection for a low back
disorder.
3. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus
due to exposure to herbicides.
4. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, to
include as due to exposure to herbicides.
5. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension as
secondary to diabetes mellitus.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant and his wife
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
W.T. Snyder, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from September 1965 to April
1969.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the Columbia,
South Carolina, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
The veteran testified at a Video Teleconference (VTC)
Hearing in December 2004 before the undersigned Veterans Law
Judge, who is designated by the Chairman of the Board to
conduct hearings pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102 (West 2002).
A transcript of the hearing testimony is associated with the
claims file.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further
action is required on your part.
REMAND
The veteran's available military personnel records reflect
that he served aboard the USS Mount (Mt) Katmai. While
assigned to the USS Mt Katmai, between July 1966 and March
1969, the veteran served a number of tours in the coastal
waters of Vietnam. The veteran testified at the VTC that his
assigned duties included the operation of small transit craft
which actually docked ashore in Vietnam for periods up to 30
minutes to onload either crew or mail. He related that
frequently there was no pier, so he had to physically stand
on the beach and hold the boat. The available personnel
records reflect no entries to the effect that he served or
visited ashore in Vietnam. Lay statements by former
shipmates, however, reflect that the veteran in fact
performed this type duty, one of which provided a specific
time frame.
The Mt Katmai was an ammunition ship. The veteran related
that he injured his eye and back while moving bombs in a
steel net from one place to another, when either the net or a
bomb fell back and knocked him off of what he was standing
on. The veteran stated that the cut in the area of his eye
required stitches, and he was treated in sick bay. At the
VTC, he related that he did seek treatment for his back
shortly after his release from active service, but he had not
inquired into the continued availability of any records that
may have been generated.
Efforts to obtain the veteran's service medical records have
been unfruitful, as the National Personnel Records Center
informed the RO that the veteran's records likely were among
those destroyed by fire. The Board recognizes that there is
a heightened obligation to assist the veteran in the
development of his case where records are presumed to have
been or were destroyed while in the possession of the
government. See O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367
(1991). Therefore, the Board will direct efforts at
developing the avenues which the veteran indicated at the
VTC, as well as an alternative official avenue which may bear
evidence of whether he served ashore in Vietnam.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following:
1. The RO should obtain the names and
addresses of all medical care providers
who treated the veteran for his back
disorder between 1969 and 1980, to
include the providers he named as having
practiced in and around Greenville, South
Carolina. The RO should instruct the
veteran and his representative that he
must provide as much specific information
as possible. After securing the
necessary release, the RO should obtain
these records. The action taken to
obtained these records should be
documented in the case file regardless of
whether records are obtained.
2. After the above is complete, and
regardless of whether any records are
obtained, the RO should request the
Center For Unit Records Research to
review any available ship logs or other
documents of the USS Mt Katmai (AE-16)
for the period February 29, 1968, to
March 6, 1968, to determine if the Mt
Katmai launched transit craft to the
shore of Vietnam and, if so, whether the
documents reflect the veteran as among
the personnel who operated or manned the
craft.
3. After all of the above is completed,
the RO shall review all of the evidence
obtained since the last supplemental
statement of the case (SSOC) in light of
all the other evidence of record. To
the extent that any benefit sought on
appeal remains denied, issue the veteran
a SSOC and, if all is in order, return
the case to the Board for further
appellate review.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate
action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The
Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, § 707(a),
(b), 117 Stat. 2651 (2003) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §§
5109B, 7112).
_________________________________________________
Deborah W. Singleton
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2004).